Hi Guys,

Currently, there's a special offer at rackshack that i might be interested to get a new server from them.
do you think the Intel Celeron is a reliable processor to go with?
All feedback are welcome.

The processor itself is reliable although it isn't high performance. However the 1.3 ghz celeron does have a larger cache then older generation ones.

For most hosting needs i think it is more then enough.

The only limitation is that the maximum RAM is 512 MB in the Celeron white boxes... still that's probably OK for a first server... you can always get another later as your needs increase. The price is certainly right, and other than the fact that the RAM might limit you down the road, it looks like a pretty good server.

I think I would prefer the Compaq's because you can expand the ram in those to 1GB or more(?)

I'm just wondering when RS is gonna get some more AMD's?

I have an AMD system at home and I love AMD. I had Intel back in 1998-2000, and I will NEVER again use anything of Intels. The Crashes I had.....the problems..oh boy, it was a relief when I got AMD.

So, I am waiting to see when AMD's are gonna some in. So, Patrick, any AMD's on the way? That's the only thing standing in my way of being a customer.

Thankiez!

It's interesting the different experiences people have.

I've had 5 Intel computers
(486, Pentium 100, Dual Pentium pro 200, Dual Pentium II 450, Dual Pentium III 1Ghz) and all have been rock solid with 95, 98, NT 4, 2000, and RH 7.1.

But then I had the bad experience of having 3 AMD K62's from 300 mhz to 450 mhz, and they crash all the time and are slow as a dogs (two of which are Compaq's, two with 98 and one with 2000).

So I'm really biased against AMD's because of the bad older chips they released. I am so happy that Rackshack got more Intel chips in, since I still would definitely prefer an Intel chip in a server than an AMD. Not that the AMD's aren't great for desktops, but I still think Intels are more stable, have better motherboards and chipsets available, less temperature problems, etc. etc.

I generally suggest intel for hosting platforms since they have a lot of motherboards that support ECC memory, Adaptec (and others) SCSI U3 onboard etc....

For workstations (servers are ok too) AMD rocks! The price rocks. The speed rocks.

Both Intel and AMD make excellent processors. The lockups, freezes, and crashes people experience are usually the result of chipset problems or overheating, not the processors themselves. A few years ago, I bought a Hewlett Packard computer with an AMD K6-2/333, and it had nothing but problems with lockups and freezes. Back then, people were telling me AMD processors sucked, and that was the problem. Hewlett Packard's technical support was not very helpful. I got so fed up that I bought a new motherboard and never had problems with it since. From that day forward, I vowed never to buy another computer again. I build my own now and never had problems like that. I've stuck with AMD since you get more bang for your buck. I've upgraded quite a bit since then, but the AMD K6-2/333 is still in use in another computer and still works great.

Compaq home k6 desktops are one of the worst ways to go. A lot of K6 computers came with lowest end everything. It's somewhat different with athlons as motherboard manufacturers started to become more reliable then in the past.

Before if you bought a no name brand motherboard you were in for some trouble. Nowadays you don't have to worry as much.

I stress the fact that usually it's not the chip itself at fault with the k6's but the hardware it's usually bundled with.

Anyone have a table or comparison where you can actually see all the main processors compared on several different tests? It should include the Pentium III, Celercon, AMD Duron, Athlone, etc.

Peoples experiences definetly vary!! I have owned 6 intels and 1 AMD and I must say the Amd was very troublesome. :eek:

But on the other hand I also know a lot of people who are very happy with their Amd's so it's just a matter of preference I suppose. :) :)